Charlie November wrote:Hey, have you noticed it? They're trying to sneak in a new word to describe the folks who demand money from us on the street, use the alleys as bathrooms, sleep in doorways, litter, and contribute nothing to society.

It used to be "bums." Then they become "homeless." The new one? "Unsheltered."

Wow. I think that's a new low of lack of understanding, never mind empathy.

"Unsheltered" is a term to describe a person not only with out a permanent resident that also doesn't have a shelter for the night. It's been around. The category is important since really when people say they want the "homeless" off the street, they mean "unsheltered".

The "homeless" includes people staying at one of the many shelters in Denver. They are not "unsheltered". These are people who are getting help, and that's great news.

It's not a changing of a word, it's important distinction to note how many of the homeless are outside the support system.

Some of you folks appear to have no soul. Really, if you can't at least refrain from make fun of lost less fortunate than you what does that say about yourself?

Charlie November wrote:Folks, I work downtown in a high rise. I can look down on the mall and see the street urchins, the unkempt, the over-served, the underfed, and the scruffians.

I tried to count them this morning, but my telescope lens was a little foggy and I am fresh out of lens cleaner.

I shan't be going to the mall to buy more. Why, you ask? Because I, like many others, avoid the mall as much as possible. In corporate America, I know of companies that won't hold their conventions here because of the large number of scruffians and other undesirables who prowl downtown Denver.

Don't expect this to get better any time soon. We have a dim mayor who has no idea what he's doing. We have a city council filled with clueless nitwits. The previous mayor was worse than useless.

What this town needs is a smart, roll-up-the-sleeves, get it done NOW kind of a take-charge leader. A Giuliani. A Daley. A guy like Schaefer of Baltimore was. We don't have that.

GranPrix wrote:So nobody is going to make any connection between this homeless/unsheltered population and the economy? Just a weird coincidence, I guess. Just happened.

Maybe because there is not a statistically significant connection.

I would agree that broken marriages do rise with poor economic circumstances. But do you really believe this is a significant factor?

Most home foreclosures do not result in children wandering the streets without a roof over their heads at night. We raise our children in mainly two income houoseholds today. My bet is that one unemployed in a family household makes it tough for the family, but the family is not without shelter.

Last I looked, the chronic drug addict population does not show a statistically significant change in poor economic times.

If I am wrong, please show me the facts.

“I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'. And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.” ― Milton Friedman

CAPTAIN HOOK wrote:Denver needs to start turning away vagrants who show up with out of state identification and out of state EBT cards expecting free shelter and benefits, as they make up at least 25% of the homeless population in Denver. I see new faces every week. They are bussing here from all over the country, just as occurred with Seattle and San Francisco in years past. Denver's official policy of "Hug a Bum" has backfired pretty badly and now everyone suffers.

The first Americans tried turning them away too. What if they had succeeded?

btw Was it that guy named Jesus who invented "hug everyone, especially the one you dislike" It worked for him!

DakotaPlainsman wrote:The "Road Home Program" in some manner rewards those who would rather live as leaches. Yes, it also serves the truly needy and unfortunate, but, the bureaucrats that run the program fail to adequately differentiate between the bad actors and the truly needy.

Charlie November wrote:Folks, I work downtown in a high rise. I can look down on the mall and see the street urchins, the unkempt, the over-served, the underfed, and the scruffians.

I tried to count them this morning, but my telescope lens was a little foggy and I am fresh out of lens cleaner.

I shan't be going to the mall to buy more. Why, you ask? Because I, like many others, avoid the mall as much as possible. In corporate America, I know of companies that won't hold their conventions here because of the large number of scruffians and other undesirables who prowl downtown Denver.

Heavens, man! Have you no office boy to clean your tele-scope when it becomes fouled? Next you'll be telling me that you operate your own horseless carriage.

DakotaPlainsman wrote:The "Road Home Program" in some manner rewards those who would rather live as leaches. Yes, it also serves the truly needy and unfortunate, but, the bureaucrats that run the program fail to adequately differentiate between the bad actors and the truly needy.

Okay, I'm your huckleberry. What is the difference between the "bad actors" and the "truly needy" and how does one differentiate between the two?

Charlie November wrote:Folks, I work downtown in a high rise. I can look down on the mall and see the street urchins, the unkempt, the over-served, the underfed, and the scruffians.

I tried to count them this morning, but my telescope lens was a little foggy and I am fresh out of lens cleaner.

I shan't be going to the mall to buy more. Why, you ask? Because I, like many others, avoid the mall as much as possible. In corporate America, I know of companies that won't hold their conventions here because of the large number of scruffians and other undesirables who prowl downtown Denver.

Heavens, man! Have you no office boy to clean your tele-scope when it becomes fouled? Next you'll be telling me that you operate your own horseless carriage.

Love it!!

Obama's America 2012.Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you! JFK is spinning in his grave!

Ask any of these homeless if they are better off now than they were 4 years ago.

First -- do mean without shelter or do you mean the definition of homeless that includes any person seeking social services help due to dislocation as well as those counted in shelters and on the street?

Second -- As far as asking people down on their luck whether they were once better off -- probably an insult to even ask the obvious. What is the point?

Third -- Not necessarily that a poorer economy means an increase in shelterlessness. A bad economy means a poorer citizenry. It may mean more temporary disruptions and relocations. It should not and probably does not result in a statistical increase in a longterm shelterless population. Even the reports cite that most homelessness does not result in lack of shelter. The reports aslo cite that the solution is largely solved quickly for a great deal that are classed as homeless.

I would be interested in any facts that would show me to be wrong.

“I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'. And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.” ― Milton Friedman

Ask any of these homeless if they are better off now than they were 4 years ago.

First -- do mean without shelter or do you mean the definition of homeless that includes any person seeking social services help due to dislocation as well as those counted in shelters and on the street?

Second -- As far as asking people down on their luck whether they were once better off -- probably an insult to even ask the obvious. What is the point?

Third -- Not necessarily that a poorer economy means an increase in shelterlessness. A bad economy means a poorer citizenry. It may mean more temporary disruptions and relocations. It should not and probably does not result in a statistical increase in a longterm shelterless population. Even the reports cite that most homelessness does not result in lack of shelter. The reports aslo cite that the solution is largely solved quickly for a great deal that are classed as homeless.

I would be interested in any facts that would show me to be wrong.

"First -- do mean without shelter or do you mean the definition of homeless that includes any person seeking social services help due to dislocation as well as those counted in shelters and on the street?"

What are you blathering about? Homeless is homeless

"Second -- As far as asking people down on their luck whether they were once better off -- probably an insult to even ask the obvious. What is the point? "

Reiterating the Obama foul of hope and change

"Third -- Not necessarily that a poorer economy means an increase in shelterlessness. A bad economy means a poorer citizenry. It may mean more temporary disruptions and relocations. It should not and probably does not result in a statistical increase in a longterm shelterless population. Even the reports cite that most homelessness does not result in lack of shelter. The reports aslo cite that the solution is largely solved quickly for a great deal that are classed as homeless. "

You're one of those people who talk just to hear yourself speak. You're the one making statistical assertions. Where are your facts?

Obama Democrats, the anti-American party of HATE

When asked if obtaining a legitimate ID to vote with was difficult: "I'm American, it was easy......" Bellarubia 7/13/2012

barbs wrote:Note: some of our homeless are veterans of our many foreign wars who gave their best and couldn't handle being required to kill...and worse...so I have real problems with anyone who presumes to judge...

My son, daughter-in-law, and grandson would not have been counted because they were homeless as of April. They are now living in a fifth wheel camper, moving from parking place to parking place. My daughter-in-law has been unemployed since December, 2010 and my son lost his job last May. Neither have been able to find anything except short term work and they lost their home in April. Their income tax return was enough to buy a used fifth wheel...and they are using our house as their postal address (we haven't got any more room, since my mother-in-law is already here). The situation is scary and getting worse...prayers for them and all the others in their place will be helpful.

Help a veteran by informing him/her of his/her earned benefits is the way out of homelessness.

In 2008, ALL NINE justices of the Supreme Court agreed that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that government may regulate guns. Read on it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Anoldguy wrote:Hope and Change - How's it working? Vote for the Liberals. They can easily solve these problems. Just listen to them. They've been solving these problems for years...not!

And thanks to failed conservative policies of past is what created much of the homeless as the middle class is disappearing.

In 2008, ALL NINE justices of the Supreme Court agreed that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that government may regulate guns. Read on it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

californiaman49 wrote:I was homeless I didn't beg or destroy my fellow citizens property I went to work and slept in my car.

It took me almost a year before I had saved enough to get my own place.

Now when I walk around Denver I carry a couple of bottles of water and a box of granola bars and if apporaced I hand them out.

It's that of nothing in my book so if you want this problem to end then stop providing cash for booze,drugs or whatever they are buying with it.

It's real simple people just say NO to them if they don't have it they won't stay.

See that is because you wanted to be something in life which motivated you to do better. Which is different then what the "bums" downtown do tho.

Many of the homeless downtown just want to live on welfare under some bridge or someone's doorway panhandling for pot, booze, cigarettes, heroin, crack, whatever instead of working. And cite that it is their Constitutional right to be a "BUM".

In 2008, ALL NINE justices of the Supreme Court agreed that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that government may regulate guns. Read on it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

californiaman49 wrote:I was homeless I didn't beg or destroy my fellow citizens property I went to work and slept in my car.

It took me almost a year before I had saved enough to get my own place.

Now when I walk around Denver I carry a couple of bottles of water and a box of granola bars and if apporaced I hand them out.

It's that of nothing in my book so if you want this problem to end then stop providing cash for booze,drugs or whatever they are buying with it.

It's real simple people just say NO to them if they don't have it they won't stay.

See that is because you wanted to be something in life which motivated you to do better. Which is different then what the "bums" downtown do tho.

Many of the homeless downtown just want to live on welfare under some bridge or someone's doorway panhandling for pot, booze, cigarettes, heroin, crack, whatever instead of working. And cite that it is their Constitutional right to be a "BUM".

Right on! I know there are cases of true hardship, but much of the time it's a lifestyle choice.

Obama Democrats, the anti-American party of HATE

When asked if obtaining a legitimate ID to vote with was difficult: "I'm American, it was easy......" Bellarubia 7/13/2012

A good point in this article is that many of the homeless in Denver and surrounding areas are women and children. A majority have left their homes due to domestic or other forms of abuse. A camping ban will make life harder for these people. It would make sense to establish more shelters and/or assistance to the real problems effecting people, rather than address the symptoms of these problems (homelessness). Recently, I had found myself in a situation of considering living in my car. I am a single mother, had been searching for work for over a year and found I could not find assistance through programs in Colorado. I made $32.00 too much for Human Service Assistance and many of the programs set up to assist people had been tapped out of funds. Many people are na??ve to the fact that not all homeless are they stereotypical alcoholic/drug addict. This is a problem everyone in the community needs to be more informed on, we may find ourselves in similar situations some day.